Over on Twitter, and in other forums I suppose, my friend and colleague William Tisherman, otherwise known simply as Tish, continues to flog the "controversy" over numerical wine ratings.
He is joined in combat from time to time by others who view the practice of assigning a number to a wine review as an affront to common sense. Their argument, if I am hearing them right, is that no cold, hard number can adequately define a given wine.
We have no disagreement there. We use numerical ratings here at Wine Review Online and I use them in my syndicated wine column because for many consumers, it is the number that gets their attention and the number that causes them to take a closer look at the wine.
That number, which I have often described as nothing more than an "applause meter" measuring only one specific critic’s enthusiasm for one particular wine, is always accompanied by text that describes the wine in some detail, and what it was about the wine the critic loved — or, in some cases, didn’t.
But let me ask this: If not a number, what then as a lure to the consumer? Puffs, which is what Connoiseurs Guide once used? Ambiguous headings such as Excellent, Exceptional, Good, Very Good, et al? Grades, such as A+, B-, C+ or, heaven forbid, F! Is any quantitative measurement adequate? Or should we only measure our pleasure in a wine through the decibel level of our prose?
The reality is that most consumers understand a numerical scale and can relate that to the wine reviewer’s level of encouragement to purchase a particular wine. I don’t see anything wrong with that.
What I don’t understand or get is this: Why would one reviewer criticize another over the presentation of a recommendation? Why is it an issue? If some critics prefer the 100-point scale and choose to use it for their publications or web platforms, I assume they do so because they believe it serves their constituents. If some critics prefer other devices, bully for them! If some consumers follow the scores, so what? If others prefer text-only recommendations and don’t fall asleep from the repetitiveness of the descriptors in the Chardonnay reviews, fine by me!
Publishers and critics must decide for themselves what’s best for their platform. The audience will follow where it feels most comfortable. Build a bad model, you lose. Readers will flock elsewhere.
I say to each his own. Is this even a controversy? Please.
Email comments to [email protected] or Tweet @wineguru.
COMMENTS
mighein: The blog entry was truth fwd, strong Puffs in the midpalate but the finish could have been longer. 91 pts.
RonMcFarland: My take on the ratings conversation is – it is just part of wine evolution – better to be part of than not – best wishes
8